One of the things
I enjoyed most about the PBS Frontline on Lee Harvery Oswald was how they tried
to create as neutral a position as possible while getting many different
viewpoints. I don’t think they succeeded
entirely, but it seems very impressive that they did not try to make some
“gripping” narrative out of all of the coincidences and facts they discussed. It was disappointing how “limited” even a
recent, amply funded documentary is to get the story out from the original
people involved. Not only are a lot of
them dead, but many people, like Lee’s wife, declined to interview with
PBS. Instead we had to hear from her
through the “family friend” of the Oswalds who just didn’t seem 100%
trustworthy: Part of the essential problem with searching for the “truth” is
that different people have different narratives of that same “truth” that seem
just as “true” to them – this family friend is recounting what she heard from
another person over 50 years ago: just imagine how much that story could have
morphed into her own narrative. It also bugged me a bit how they shot each of
the interviewees in the setting the PBS people wanted to have them fit into
their own narrative: For instance some
of the FBI guys seem veeeeery untrustworthy, Jack Ruby’s friend is shown
smoking in a club, etc. Overall I feel like the PBS documentary provided really
useful context for Libra that makes
it much easier and more interesting to read.
That's why I think what Delilo is trying to do with Libra is interesting. Given the lack of personal insight into Oswald's life and his character, Delilo attempting to construct who Oswald really is, is important. I haven't seen the PBS documentary, but judging by the unresponsiveness from people who knew Oswald, we aren't going to be getting the "truth" from people who might actually know the truth. So now it's up to Delilo to reveal the "truth" in his own way.
ReplyDeleteI really wish I could have made it to the documentary, but my work shift didn't end until 7:30, and I was all the way across town. I'd be interested to see it at some point, even if I don't have the time until after we're all done with Libra - it would still be quite interesting in retrospect. I thought it was funny how you pointed out that the documentary still ended up having some sort of bias, despite its attempts to provide multiple viewpoints and remain neutral. In Topics in Social Justice we just watched a documentary on charter schools, and we talked about how documentaries are *supposedly* unbiased, merely presenting the facts, but how it's hard to find a truly unbiased one. (It depends a lot on who's funding the documentary... I totally trust PBS but you never know, maybe someone deep within the CIA wanted the documentary to be created in order to influence peoples' perceptions... who knows...)
ReplyDeleteI can definitely understand what you're saying about PBS's failure to stay completely neutral in its depictions of certain characters. I've noticed a theme in documentaries where they take themselves and their verity seriously, while also creating in the viewer a leaning towards one opinion or another (a leaning which may not always be explicit from hearing only the facts). I think part of this might just be because of the nature of television. These programs have to dramatize their subject to keep people interested, as does any novel, newspaper, or media source. Unfortunately, as we've discussed in class, it seems as though any way you try to relay a narrative, there's going to be some skewing of history.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "truth"?
ReplyDeleteExactly Alek
ReplyDelete